Rutherford/Ritchie/1974, 185, argue that the dropping of the H in (h)OC is purely orthographic.

Palaeography:

Rutherford/Ritchie/1974, 183--184: `debased roman capitals...note particularly the ligatured MV, and the characteristic L with oblique foot. The reversed N is not common...the O's are neat and small, some way above the base lines...the fifth letter in the fourth line...is indisputably an R with an almost horizontal tail...at the end of line three...the drawings all clearly show what appears to be a half-uncial F with conjoined I'.

Thomas/1992a, 4: `Fairly regular capitals; line 1, N is reversed. Ligatures of MV, line 2, and FI, line 3'.

Legibility:

someRutherford/Ritchie/1974, 183: `the letters are...still for the most part well-defined. The condition of the inscription deteriorates from the left edge to the right, where it becomes weathered'.

Vetta (Language: Brittonic; Gender: female)
'Rutherford and Ritchie/1974, 185: `an apparently unattested, presumably British, personal name; it would most probably be feminine, although a masculine a-stem is not entirely out of the question'.

Victr[--] (Language: Latin; Gender: unknown)
Rutherford and Ritchie/1974, 185: `it looks most like a truncated or syncopated Latin genitive. In the former case, the genitive of Victricius would fit neatly as would that of Victrix. In the latter, there are more possibilities: any one of VICTOR, VICTORIA, VICTORIANUS, VICTORINA, VICTORINUS, etc could yield a genitive in VICTR-'.